|
Author
|
Topic: Two Elegant Falsifications of RM&NS
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 23. June 2002 14:14
Warren,
You are correct about my 1) argument namely that your NDG theory is a strawman argument but you may have misunderstoood 2) not supported by references in the literature.
I am not asking you to support your own theory with such references since I realize that such new ideas may have little empirical support in the literature yet. Although I would argue that in the end you will have to reconcile the results in the literature with your theory.
You state that "nowhere in science is there a requirement to falsify imaginary theories" and yet that's exactly what a strawman argument sets out to do, disprove an 'imaginary theory' or perhaps 'imagined theory'. So I am confused about your contradictory statements.
You also claim that "the logic of the argument is clear and the facts asserted are not in doubt" but that is exactly what I say to be the problem. Your argument is based on a strawman argument, uses naive falsification and thus my claim is that your 'facts' that is your representation of NDG is indeed in doubt.
If you claim that your straman theory is the only NDG theory in existence then I encourage you to support that claim with actual references that show this to be the case.
But in the end you will have to deal with 2) as well because in order for your theory to displace the current theory, you have to show that it performs better.
Some of the issues you need to support is your claims in the previous posting about NDG and genetic change, NDG and GA functions, and NDG and purposeful genetic systems. These all go the issue of validity of your strawman argument.
[ 23 June 2002, 14:25: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 23. June 2002 18:17
Frances:
You wrote:
"I think we need to be careful to assign 'human' characteristics or intelligence to this response. What if the response is merely resulting from the organism under stress 'shutting down'. Does water have the 'need' to freeze when it reaches its freezing point?"
I think you put your finger here on the very heart of the matter. Water clearly does not "need" to freeze, it just minimizes energy consistent with a set a constraints, like all other inanimate systems. When the ambient temperature drops below its critical point, there is spontaneous symmetry breaking and the low-energy configuration is one with reduced degrees of freedom (which we call a "crystal").
The cell, however, is not just minimizing energy. Rather, it is doing WORK---that is to say, it is directing energetic resources where and when they are needed in order to preserve itself in existence. Much of this work is actually moving matter against the local thermal gradients, and almost all of it is very specifically directed; very little transport in the cell is by thermal diffusion, it now seems.
So, the crux of the matter is to explain how this coordination and coherence in pursuit of the goal of self-preservation is possible, from a physical point of view. I maintain that natural selection theory does not help to explain this, because it actually presupposes it (in the very notion of "survival," as well as in the notion of "fitness").
As for your example of the flashlight "needing" batteries, wouldn't you agree that that is merely a facon de parler? Surely, it is WE who need for the flashlight to have batteries, not the flashlight itself. In this respect, living things are very different from manmade machines.
[ 23 June 2002, 18:18: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 24. June 2002 16:27
Frances,
The purpose of the falsification only argument is to establish either that 1)the existing NDG RM&NS theory is invalid or 2)there is no valid NDG RM&NS theory. This is accomplished with a combination of 1)falsifying a form of a theory which may or may not currently be considered valid (falsifying what may called straw many theory), 2)the failure of anyone to demonstrate that the falsification does not in fact falsify the existing model or theory, and 3)the failure of anyone to anyone to propose/present an explicit formulation of a model or theory which passes the tests or tests which falsified the theory. There is no contradiction or inconsistency in such a strategy or argument.
I believe your suggestions regarding documentation come under the heading of ‘making the falsification more convincing’. Falsification only arguments are not inherently very convincing. The general reaction of most individuals to such an argument is ‘Wait until a new model or theory is presented’ or ‘wait until the experts have spoken’. The individual familiar with and interested in the issue know the relevant facts and ideas. Those who aren’t directly involved don’t care.
A falsification only argument will never overcome what I have referred to as the ‘corruption of professional standards’. If, as I believe has happened, professional standards have become corrupted to the point where falsification of NDG will not be recognized, then the vast majority of scientists who ‘rely on the opinions of experts’ to address the issue, will not accept falsification.
Falsification is only the first small component of the falsify and replace process. The falsification of RM&NS, IMO, is a relatively trivial operations that can and has been accomplished in manner different ways. The only really ‘interesting’ feature falsification is the ‘unwillingness of scientific community to recognize this or apparently any the falsifications which have been produced’. This, again IMO, is due to the ‘corruption of professional standards’.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 24. June 2002 23:44
Warren writes,
quote:
The falsification of RM&NS, IMO, is a relatively trivial operations that can and has been accomplished in manner different ways. The only really ‘interesting’ feature falsification is the ‘unwillingness of scientific community to recognize this or apparently any the falsifications which have been produced’. This, again IMO, is due to the ‘corruption of professional standards’.
What a remarkable statement!
Translation: RM&NS is clearly and obviously wrong, and all the scientists in the world who don’t, or won’t, accept this do so because they “have corrupted professional standards.”
This is a strong charge, and one that is, I think, offensive to the millions of people who think other than Warren does, and especially to those in the biological sciences. Although I am not a scientist (and thus not subject to “professional” standards), I would argue strenuously that whatever differences I might have with Warren about these matters is not because I am intellectually corrupt in any way.
So I protest this characterization, both for myself and for my many scientist friends who put their heart and soul into trying to understand the world with all the intellectual honesty and professional scruples that they can. Irrespective of the degree to which anyone turns out to be right or wrong in the long-run, accusing the vast population of mainstream scientists of corrupt professional standards has no place in the discussion, I think.
My 2¢.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 25. June 2002 06:55
Evan,
Science, or if you prefer hard science, has very rigorous standards as to what constitutes a valid, non-falsified theory. No one has produced an explicit rigorous form of RM&NS which satisfies these rigorous standards, and specifically no one has presented an explicit form of RM&NS which can address the falsification demonstrations presented here. In the absence of an explicit formulation of RM&NS which can address the issues raised, I am fully justified in the making the claim that RM&NS has been falsified.
The widespread, popular belief in the validity of RM&NS is based on authoritative, or pre-science standards. The whole point of the discussion here is to demonstrate that RM&NS does not meet real, rigorous, hard science standards. The sensitivities of a large number of people who accept a popular myth, is not, it should be apparent, a valid argument for the scientific validity of the argument.
The concept of ‘corruption of professional standards’, as I tried to explain, refers not to moral turpitude, but to a rather common feature of human behavior. This behavioral phenomena, I propose, explains why ‘professional standards’ designed or intended to preserve scientific integrity, are permitting the use of non-scientific or pre-scientific theories such as RM&NS. Although beyond the scope of the topic here, the explanation of how, why and when corruption of professional standards occurs is, IMO, a fascinating subject. The subject is, IMO, relevant to ID because it provides important insights into how humans actually design solutions to complex problems (and how the design process can go astray). This is, however, another subject for another day.
If, as you suggest, millions would be offended by the claim that RM&NS is not a valid scientific theory, it should be noted that there are at least a handful of us who object to the unsubstantiated claim that RM&NS is a valid scientific theory. The discussion here has been aimed at those interested in the narrow technical aspects of falsifying RM&NS. The fact that the results of such narrow technical analysis might be contrary to widely held popular ‘sacred’ beliefs is, IMO, interesting.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 25. June 2002 08:01
Warren writes, "If, as you suggest, millions would be offended by the claim that RM&NS is not a valid scientific theory ...."
That is not what I said. I said that millions would be offended by your statement that "corrupt professional standards" was the reason that they failed to agree with you about your claim that RM&NS is not a valid scientific theory.
It is the charge of intellectual corruption to which I object.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 25. June 2002 08:11
This is a general warning for this thread and for warren in particular. Please refrain from making statements which can be taken as character attacks. This applies whether you are referring to one person or to a group of people (scientists).
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 25. June 2002 09:26
Moderator,
I apologize if the terms I use are being interpreted as an insult. I have tried to be careful and make it clear that the phrase ‘corruption of professional standards’(I don’t believe I used the expression corrupt professional standards) is not and is not intended as an attack on the character of scientists. The term refers to the fact that decision making or peer review standards must serve both the interests of a profession(such as scientists) and a broader audience (such as science). It is quite common in all fields and professions that standards are used which provide short term benefits to the profession which but which directly conflict with both the long term interests of the profession and the interests of the broader audience. I refer to these flaws or distortions as ‘corruption of professional standards’. I am certainly open to suggestions for an alternative phrase.
Of specific concern in the discussion here, is the widespread peer review practice of permitting reference to ‘implicit or non explicitly formulated theories’ as ‘valid scientific theories’. This practice allows biological professionals to claim the status of having a valid scientific theory without having to actually produce such a theory. This ‘professional standard’ would be a harmless vanity if it were not routinely used to avoid falsification of the RM&NS and other NDG theories. [This is the widely used straw man argument that any evidence provided does not disprove the theory because it doesn’t address the real but not explicitly formulated form of the theory.]
While I am in full agreement with the need to avoid attacks on either individuals or groups, I don’t believe this precludes commenting on the validity or soundness of practices of individuals and groups. I do not believe I said, nor did I intend to say that scientists are corrupt. I did say, and I do not think it is inappropriate, that treating non-explicitly formulated theories as valid scientific theories is a ‘corruption of professional standards’.
Again I apologize if my comments give the appearance of a personal attack. However, I do not believe that I am actually guilty of having committed such an attack.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 25. June 2002 10:49
Warren,
I am confused. In the beginning of the thread you claim to have two elegant falsifications of RM&NS. When pressed for details you admit that you were "attacking a strawman". I point out that unless you can support with references to actual research that your strawman accurately describes the reality, you may not have done more than create an oversimplification or erroneous version of RM&NS/NDG. That you claim to have found elegant falsifications thus has no real meaning. If your argument is that noone has offered you a better theory of NDG then you have to take into consideration a myriad of possibilities why this may be the case. You cannot and should not be using the absence of a response as evidence that no such theory exists UNLESS you can show us that you have researched the appropriate literature.
Since you claim that the falsification of RM&NSis relatively trivial, I urge you to do so by applying it to the current theories of NDG and RM&NS. Then we can discuss the merrits of naive falsification, extension of existing theories to deal with new data and other issues related to falsification attempts.
In short: Falsification requires the identification of accurate predictions or requirements based on the existing theory and then proceeding to show that these predictions are not supported by the data. But that is a necessary condition but not perse sufficient for falsification.
You have made many claims about RM&NS/NDG but I have seen NO references to actual research, literature to suggest that you have accurately captured the theory of RM&NS/NDG.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 27. June 2002 10:12
Frances,
QUOTE: You have made many claims about RM&NS/NDG but I have seen NO references to actual research, literature to suggest that you have accurately captured the theory of RM&NS/NDG.
I thought we had already discussed this issue in detail, but since it is central to the issue of ID and ‘falsifying and replacing’ Darwinian theory, it is probably worth repeating. You are raising what I will label the ‘Straw man defense’. This argument says in effect "You have not falsified by theory because you have not demonstrated/proved what my theory is".
It should be very obvious that this argument/defense is not consistent with or compatible with fundamental scientific principles or standards. Scientific standards clearly require that scientific theories be explicitly stated and open to independent testing and review. A personal, private, secret or implicit theory is not by definition a ‘scientific theory’.
While ‘you misinterpreted the theory and here is what is says and how I suggest it should be interpreted…." is an appropriate and legitimate defense of an existing theory, the straw man defense is not a legitimate scientific argument/defense.
As far as I am aware, the counter arguments offered to the falsification of Darwinian/RM&NS/NDG theories and models come under the following headings"
1. THERE IS POSITIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE EXISTING THEORY- As is well known, science does not accept the existence of positive evidence as an offset to falsification.
2. THE AUTHORITIES DO NOT RECOGNIZE FALSIFICATION- As is well known, the validity of a scientific theory does not depend on the vote or personal opinions of authority figures.
3. STRAW MAN DEFENSE- As discussed, this is not an acceptable scientific argument.
4. THE FALSIFY AND REPLACE DEFENSE- There is a convention in science that a theory need not be rejected unless an valid alternative is presented.
If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you will note the objective was to
discuss falsification excluding the ‘falsify AND replace defense’.
I have made the general claim that there are no ‘scientifically sound or legitimate' counter arguments or defenses to falsification of RM&NS/NDG (other falsify AND replace). In the discussion here, no one has raised a scientifically sound defense or counter argument.
I suggested that RM&NS/NDG is accepted or treated in some of the peer review literature as a valid, non-falsified theory despite the fact that there are no scientifically sound defenses or counter arguments to falsification. I suggested, can be explained if ‘peer review standards’ are different from, or have departed from ‘scientific standards’. In the discussion here, no one presented evidence counter to this claim.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 27. June 2002 12:33
I find it fascinating to hear that Warren does not consider the 'strawman defense' to be scientifically accepted but that he does find the strawman hypothesis to be acceptable. Warren appers to have already admitted that he is using a strawman version of Neo-Darwinism so how can he consider my defense to be unacceptable. Does this mean Warren also considers his strawman argument to be fallacious? Warren furthers the strawman argument by creating additional ones, the latest is "you have not falsified my theory because you have not demonstrated what my theory is". Notice the Warren has shifted here from 'his strawman of Neo-Darwinism' to 'your theory'. I am merely pointing out that I am not impressed by what was argued to be an elegant way to disprove Neo-Darwinism. It fails on several grounds, first of all I argue that Warren has not shown that his premises have a foundation in scientific thought relevant to neo-darwinism, secondly I argue that even if we were to accept his 'falsification' that the theory could be very easily extended to incorporate his additional claims.
And finally Warren seems to mistake the silence on the part of the participants in this discussion as evidence of the validity of his thesis. Even worse, Warren claims that the participants have not raised valid objections.
To conclude:
Warren has failed to apply a scientifically valid falsification method. By applying the strawman falsification approach he has not shown that the strawman accurately captures the current theory, worse he excludes what he calls the 'strawman defence' as a valid objection. One is but left to conclude that this also means that the strawman approach is equally flawed.
Finally, Warren is using the fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, namely that what he considers to be absence of a scientifically sound defense is evidence of the validity of his strawman.
In a final attempt to steer Warren's attempts to falsify Neo-Darwinism and RM&NS into a direction which is scientifically sound, I encourage Warren to show supporting evidence for his premises. Until then, his claims will have to be rejected as a 'strawman fallacy'. Falsifying a theory means hard work but as scientists we are all aware that such hard work may be rewarded either by resulting in a scientifically sound falsification or a stronger theory that has withstood another falsification attempt.
[ 27 June 2002, 13:12: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 27. June 2002 15:00
Frances,
QUOTE: I argue that even if we were to accept his 'falsification' that the theory could be very easily extended to incorporate his additional claims
Given the almost certain Nobel prize that would accompany a ‘valid non-falsifyable’ re-formulations of RM&NS, the reluctance of evolutionary biologists to produce such ‘easy extensions’ seems a wee bit surprising.
My impression, based on admittedly limited data, is that the individuals who have attempted re-formulations of Darwin and NDG, are fully aware of vast complexity of the problem, and are well aware of the fact that no to date has come up with a viable formulation/solution. In support of this impression, I have may a number of requests for either 1)a valid testable formulation of RM&NS or 2)an assertion by a qualified expert in peer reviewed article claiming that a valid testable formulation of RM&NS exists. No one has ever produced either requested item.
It is my impression/belief that those knowledgeable on the subject know that no non-falsified, testable form of RM&NS exists or is likely to exist any time in the near future. Falsifying RM&NS, as I stated from the beginning, is, IMO, a narrow technical preliminary to presenting an alternative to Darwinian theory.
The obviously passionate and widespread academic support for the validity of RM&NS, while interesting as a social phenomena, does not, again IMO, have very strong or very interesting technical support.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 27. June 2002 23:27
Warren argues that one would certainly get a Nobel prize for a valid non-falsifiable re-formulation of RM&NS and claims reluctance on the part of evolutionist as 'surprising'.
Once again Warren seems to be setting up a strawman argument. First of all I doubt that one would get a Nobel prize for something already done (I am assuming that the non-falsifiable is an error on the part of Warren). Secondly Warren suggests that evolutionary biologists have not proposed (falsifiable mechanisms) as extensions. Such a claim can be easily shown wrong by pointing to for instance genetic drift and Punctuated Equilibrium.
I am still amazed how Warren continues to make assertions like "biologists are aware of the complexity of the problem" without much further attempt to show that there is such a problem.
If Warren wants a testable formulation of RM&NS that's fine but Warren was claiming that he had provided for 'an elegant falsification of RM&NS". Now we find out that the elegance was limited to strawmen versions of RM&NS which would at most require extensions to the strawman.
So Warren wants a formulation of RM&NS, although I would like to point out that Neo-Darwinism, while including RM&NS as a mechanism, includes additional mechanisms. But let's look at RM&NS:
RM: Random mutations. The argument is that a major form of variation in the genome arises through mutations which are random wrt the environment, that is they are random wrt function.
NS: Natural selection
quote:
Endler provides us with a definition in "Natural selection in the Wild" which does not suffer from this problem:
Natural selection can be defined as a process in which
If a population has
1. variation among individuals in some trait or attribute
2. a consistent relationship between that trait and mating ability, fertilizing ability, fertility, fecundity and or survivorship (fitness)
3. a consistent relationship for that trait between parents and their offspring which is at least partially independent of common environmental effects (inheritance)
then
1. the trait frequency distribution will differ among age classes
2. if the population is not at equilibrium then the trait distribution of all offspring in the population will be predictably different from that of all parents beyond that expected from conditions a and c alone.
RM&NS in its simplest form claims that variation in the genome, combined with selection through the environment is a mechanism for evolution.
If we were to accept Warren's reasoning the we would have to reject RM&NS since genetic drift is another mechanism. I have been reading up on theoretical genetics and found that the research on understanding the many mechanisms for variation and selection is quite extensive.
[ 27 June 2002, 23:32: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 28. June 2002 12:09
Frances,
QUOTE: First of all I doubt that one would get a Nobel prize for something already done
While I agree with this quote, I am yet to be convinced that there exists an ‘explicit, non-falsified, testable scientific re-formulation’. I repeat, the ‘straw man falsification’ is valid if the ‘straw man formulation’ is a place holder for a non-existent, imaginary, or secret model or theory. The straw man falsification is an admittedly trivial exercise.
The straw man falsification of RM&NS is valid until and/or unless someone can actually produce an ‘explicit, non-falsified, testable scientific re-formulation’ of RM&NS. One can’t help but think of the Emperor’s new clothes. Everyone, even most ID proponents, seem to believe in the ‘existence’ of the ‘current form of RM&NS’, but no one can actually produce it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 28. June 2002 12:29
Congratulations then for falsifying a strawman argument that has no relationship to reality. I have tried to steer you towards an approach which would have been more productive and relevant.
I failed.
[ 28 June 2002, 12:39: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic